83062 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Technical Guide, available on PostalPro at 

https://postalpro.usps.com. 

* * * * * 

7.0 Combining Package Services and Parcel 

Select Parcels for Destination Entry 

7.1 Combining Parcels—DSCF and DDU 

Entry 

* * * * * 

7.1.2 Basic Standards 

Package Services and Parcel Select parcels 

that qualify as machinable, nonmachinable, 

and irregular under 201 and meet the 

following conditions may be combined in 5- 

digit scheme and 5-digit sacks or 5-digit 

scheme and 5-digit pallets under these 

conditions: 

* * * * * 

[Revise the second sentence of item b to 

read as follows:] 

b. * * * For mailings presented under 7.0, 

mailers may document and pay postage using 

USPS Ship under 2.9. 

* * * * * 

7.2 Combining Parcel Select and Package 

Services Machinable Parcels for DNDC Entry 

* * * * * 

7.2.2 Basic Standards 

Parcel Select and Package Services parcels 

must meet the following conditions: 

* * * * * 

[Revise the second sentence of item d to 

read as follows:] 

d. * * * For mailings presented under 7.0, 

mailers may document and pay postage using 

USPS Ship under 2.9. 

* * * * * 

8.0 Preparing Pallets 

* * * * * 

8.6 Pallet Labels 

* * * * * 

8.6.6 Line 3 

[Revise the third sentence of the 

introductory text of 8.6.6 to read as follows:] 

* * * Labels on containers of parcels 

prepared using USPS Ship under 2.9 must 

show ‘‘USPS Ship’’ either to the left of 

required line 3 information or directly below 

line 3 using the same size and lettering used 

for line 3. * * * 

* * * * * 

18.0 Priority Mail Express Open and 

Distribute and Priority Mail Open and 

Distribute 

18.1 Prices and Fees 

* * * * * 

18.1.6 Postage Statement for Enclosed Mail 

[Revise the text of 18.1.6 to read as 

follows:] 

The mailer must provide the correct 

postage statement for the enclosed mail 

unless prepared under USPS Ship. If the 

enclosed mail is zone-priced, the mailer must 

either provide documentation that details the 

pieces and postage, by zone for each Priority 

Mail Express Open and Distribute or Priority 

Mail Open and Distribute shipment 

destination or provide a separate postage 

statement for each Priority Mail Express 

Open and Distribute or Priority Mail Open 

and Distribute shipment destination. The 

mailer must always present the mailing to the 

designated USPS acceptance unit for 

verification of postage and fees. A postage 

statement is not required for the Priority Mail 

Express or Priority Mail portion of the Open 

and Distribute shipment, unless Priority Mail 

postage is paid by permit imprint not 

prepared under USPS Ship. 

* * * * * 

18.5 Preparation 

* * * * * 

18.5.3 Tags 257 and 267—Priority Mail 

Express Open and Distribute 

[Revise the second sentence of the 

introductory text of 18.5.3 to read as follows:] 

* * * For mailings prepared under USPS 

Ship, use blue Tag 257–EVS and yellow Tag 

267–EVS. * * * 

* * * * * 

18.5.4 Tags 161 and 190—Priority Mail 

Open and Distribute 

[Revise the second sentence of the 

introductory text of 18.5.4 to read as follows:] 

* * * For mailings prepared under USPS 

Ship, use green Tag 161–EVS and pink Tag 

190–EVS. * * * 

* * * * * 

18.5.7 Address Label Service Barcode 

Requirement 

[Revise the first sentence in the 

introductory text of 18.5.7 to read as follows:] 

An electronic service barcode must include 

USS 128 or Intelligent Mail package barcode 

(IMpb) (USPS Ship approved mailers) 

symbology for Priority Mail Express Open 

and Distribute, and the IMpb symbology for 

Priority Mail Open and Distribute in the 

address label. * * * 

* * * * * 

18.6 Enter and Deposit 

* * * * * 

18.6.3 Postmark and Signing Tags and 

Labels 

[Revise the text of 18.6.3 to read as 

follows:] 

Upon completion of the verification and 

acceptance of the contents, all Open and 

Distribute tags and labels must be 

postmarked and signed in the space provided 

unless prepared under an authorized USPS 

Ship manifest mailing system. Open and 

Distribute USPS Ship tags and labels bear the 

marking ‘‘APPROVED USPS Ship MAILER’’ 

in the space normally designated for the 

postmark and signature. 

* * * * * 

21.0 Optional Combined Parcel Mailings 

21.1 Basic Standards for Combining Parcel 

Select, Package Services, and USPS 

Marketing Mail Parcels 

* * * * * 

21.1.2 Postage Payment 

[Revise the last sentence of 21.1.2 to read 

as follows:] 

* * * Mailers may document and pay 

postage using USPS Ship under 2.9. 

* * * * * 

Index 

* * * * * 

E 

* * * * * 

[Delete the ‘‘Electronic Verification System 

(eVS), 705.2.9’’ line item.] 

* * * * * 

U 

* * * * * 

[Alphabetically under ‘‘U’’ list the 

following:] 

USPS Ship, 705.2.9 

* * * * * 

Colleen Hibbert-Kapler, 

Attorney, Ethics and Legal Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26160 Filed 11–27–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2022–0660; FRL–11572– 

01–R4] 

Air Plan Approval; FL; Miscellaneous 

SIP Changes 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(FDEP) on April 1, 2022. The proposed 

revision corrects definitions, updates, 

and removes outdated references, 

clarifies rule applicability in several 

rules within the Florida SIP, and 

removes methods to determine visible 

emissions. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 28, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2022–0660 at 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83063 

1On October 13, 2023, the State submitted a letter 

to EPA withdrawing its request to revise subsection 

(3) of Rule 62–296.320. Thus, EPA is not acting on 

Rule 62–296.320(3). For further information, please 

see the docket for this proposed rulemaking, which 

includes Florida’s October 13, 2023, withdrawal 

letter. 

2On April 1, 2022, FDEP submitted a number of 

SIP revisions to Chapter 62–296, Stationary 

Sources. These other SIP revisions not described 

herein will be acted on through other rulemakings. 

See also, footnote 1 regarding subparagraph (3) of 

Rule 62–296.320. 

3Florida repealed Rule 62–297.401, State 

effective on July 10, 2014. On October 13, 2017, 

EPA approved the removal of Rule 62–297.401 from 

Florida’s SIP. See 82 FR 47636. Rule 62–204.800 

adopts and incorporates by reference Federal rules 

cited throughout FDEP’s air pollution rules. 

4For further information regarding EPA’s revised 

Method 9 and opacity, see ‘‘Section 3.12 Method 9- 

Visible Determination of the Opacity of Emissions 

from Stationary Sources,’’ available at https://

www3.epa.gov/ttnemc01/qahandbook3/ 

qaiii%201977/qa%20vol%20iii%20- 

%20aug%201977%20-%20sec%203-12.pdf. 

5See CAA section 110(l). 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air and 

Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

Ms. Bell can be reached via phone 

number (404) 562–9088 or via electronic 

mail at bell.tiereny@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On April 1, 2022, FDEP submitted a 

SIP revision to EPA regarding Chapter 

62–296, Florida Administrative Code 

(F.A.C.), Stationary Sources, of the 

Florida SIP. In Florida’s April 1, 2022, 

submission, the State is requesting that 

EPA approve changes to the following 

rules in the Florida SIP: Rule 62– 

296.320(4), General Pollutant Emission 

Limiting Standards; 1 Rule 62–296.406, 

Fossil Fuel Steam Generators with Less 

Than 250 Million Btu Per Hour Heat 

Input, New and Existing Emissions 

Units; Rule 62–296.602, Primary LeadAcid Battery Manufacturing Operations; 

Rule 62–296.603, Secondary Lead 

Smelting Operations; Rule 62–296.604, 

Electric Arc Furnace Equipped 

Secondary Steel Manufacturing 

Operations; Rule 62–296.700, 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) Particulate Matter; 

Rule 62–296.702, Fossil Fuel Steam 

Generators; Rule 62–296.704, Asphalt 

Concrete Plants; Rule 62–296.705, 

Phosphate Processing Operations; Rule 

62–296.707, Electric Arc Furnaces; Rule 

62–296.708, Sweat or Pot Furnaces; 

Rule 62–296.711, Materials Handling, 

Sizing, Screening, Crushing and 

Grinding Operations; and Rule 62– 

296.712, Miscellaneous Manufacturing 

Process Operations.2 The April 1, 2022, 

SIP revision that is the subject of this 

proposed rulemaking corrects 

definitions, updates and removes 

outdated references, and clarifies 

applicability in these rules, and it 

removes methods to determine visible 

emissions in Rules 62–296.320 and 62– 

296.406. Further discussion of what the 

State submitted and why EPA is 

proposing to approve these changes to 

the Florida SIP is provided in the 

following section. 

II. Analysis of Florida’s April 1, 2022, 

SIP Revision 

A. Analysis of Rule 62–296.320 

In the April 1, 2022, submission, the 

State requests that EPA remove a 

reference to the Ringlemann Chart and 

revise subparagraph (4) of Rule 62– 

296.320 to include citations to the Code 

of Federal Regulations for the applicable 

EPA test methods—Methods 5, 9 and 

17—and state that EPA test methods are 

adopted and incorporated by reference 

at Rule 62–204.800, instead of Rule 62– 

297.401, Compliance Test Methods, due 

to the repeal of Rule 62–297.401.3

The Ringlemann Chart visible 

emissions evaluation system evolved 

from the concept developed by 

Maximillian Ringelmann in the late 

1800s, in which a chart with calibrated 

black grids on a white background was 

used to measure black smoke emissions 

from coal-fired boilers. The Ringelmann 

Chart was adopted by the U.S. Bureau 

of Mines in the early 1900s and was 

used extensively in efforts to assess and 

control emissions. In the early 1950s, 

the Ringelmann concept was expanded 

to other colors of smoke by the 

introduction of the concept of 

‘‘equivalent opacity.’’ Equivalent 

opacity meant that the white smoke was 

equivalent to a Ringelmann number in 

its ability to obscure the view of a 

background. In some States, equivalent 

opacity is still measured in Ringelmann 

numbers, whereas in others a 0 to 100 

percent scale is used. EPA stopped 

using Ringelmann numbers in the New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 

when the revised EPA Method 9 was 

promulgated in 1974.4 All NSPS visible 

emission limits are stated in percent 

opacity units, although some State 

regulations still specify the use of the 

Ringelmann system. EPA Method 9 is 

based solely on opacity. 

EPA conducted extensive field studies 

on the accuracy and reliability of the 

Method 9 opacity evaluation technique 

when the method was revised and 

repromulgated in response to industry 

challenges concerning certain NSPS 

opacity standards and methods. The 

studies showed that visible emissions 

can be assessed accurately by properly 

trained and certified observers. Two 

central features of Method 9 involve 

taking opacity readings of plumes at 15- 

second intervals and averaging 24 

consecutive readings (6 minutes) unless 

some other time is specified in the 

emission standard (some NSPS specify 

a 3-minute averaging period). EPA is 

proposing to approve removal of the 

reference to the Ringlemann Chart 

because studies found that Method 9 

was more accurate and reliable for an 

evaluation technique than the use of the 

Ringelmann numbers, EPA no longer 

uses Ringelmann numbers in the NSPS, 

and the State rule continues to use 

Method 9 for opacity. Thus, removal of 

the reference to the Ringlemann Chart 

will not interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment or 

any other applicable Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requirement.5

B. Analysis of Rule 62–296.406 

In the April 1, 2022, submission, the 

State requests that EPA revise Rule 62– 

296.406, currently titled ‘‘Fossil Fuel 

Steam Generators with Less Than 250 

Million Btu Per Hour Heat Input, New 

and Existing Emissions Units,’’ by 

removing the unnecessary phrases 

‘‘New and Existing Emissions Units’’ 

from the rule title and ‘‘new and 

existing’’ from the rule text. EPA is 

proposing to approve these changes 

because the rule will continue to apply 

to new and existing emissions units that 

meet the rule’s unchanged applicability 

criteria. 

FDEP is also requesting that EPA 

approve revisions to Rule 62– 

296.406(1), which remove references to 

repealed FDEP Method 9. Subparagraph 

296.406(1) requires subject sources to 

comply with a visible emissions limit of 

20 percent opacity. However, the rule 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
83064 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

6See the March 17, 2023, EPA memorandum to 

the file re: FL–167–1, April 1, 2022; DEP Method 

9, which is included in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking. This memorandum memorializes a 

conversation between EPA and FL DEP during 

which Florida confirmed that the difference 

between the two options is negligible since the data 

points are measured by a human observer in five 

percent increments. 

7On May 19, 1988, Florida submitted revisions to 

the SIP regarding particulate matter (PM) as part of 

the implementation of the PM10 standard (PM with 

an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less). 

The rules submitted under the May 19, 1988, date 

was State effective on May 30, 1988. In these 

revisions, which were approved by EPA on 

February 1, 1990 (55 FR 3403), EPA approved 

Florida’s changes to its particulate matter SIP that 

clarify what areas of the State were covered by the 

PM (total suspended particulates (TSP)) RACT rules 

and the location of PM (TSP) air quality 

maintenance areas and areas of influence (areas 

within 50 kilometers outside the boundary of an air 

quality maintenance area). EPA also clarified in that 

notice that RACT for existing sources would 

continue to apply in TSP nonattainment areas, but 

RACT for new and modified sources was rescinded. 

That notice addressed Rule 17–2.650, which was 

later recodified to become Rules 62–296.700 

through 62–296.712. 

8Portions of Rule 62–296.320 that are not 

addressed in this proposed rulemaking would 

remain in the Florida SIP with a State effective 

March 13, 1996. 

also allows sources two options for 

exceeding 20 percent opacity: one sixminute period per hour during which 

opacity cannot exceed 27 percent, or 

one two-minute period per hour during 

which opacity cannot exceed 40 

percent. The rule requires that the 

option selected by the source be 

specified in the source’s construction 

and operation permits. The SIP revision 

removes the exception that allows up to 

40 percent opacity over a two-minute 

period per hour but retains the 

exception that allows up to 27 percent 

opacity for one six-minute period per 

hour. The option proposed for deletion, 

which allows opacity of no more than 

40 percent over a two-minute average, 

stems from, and was consistent with, 

FDEP Method 9, which measured 

opacity on a two-minute average; 

however, Florida removed this method 

from its State rules on July 10, 2014. 

The option that is retained, allowing 

one exceedance per hour of an opacity 

up to 27 percent over a six-minute 

average, is consistent with, EPA Method 

9, which measures opacity on a sixminute average. While the averaging 

times and percent opacity allowed in 

the two exceptions differs, the two 

exceptions are approximately equivalent 

on a six-minute average.6 Subparagraph 

296.406(1) is also revised to add the 

phrase ‘‘shall not exceed’’; delete the 

word ‘‘either’’; add the word ‘‘one’’ 

before the word hour; add the word 

‘‘period’’ after one-hour; change the 

word percentile to percent; and delete 

the provision that provided that the 

selected exception to the 20 percent 

opacity requirement (27 percent for a 

six-minute average per hour or 40 

percent for two-minute period per hour) 

would be specified in a permit. These 

revisions either remove language to 

correspond to the removal of the 40 

percent opacity exception or clarify rule 

language. With such revisions, the 

proposed rule would state: ‘‘Visible 

Emissions—shall not exceed 20 percent 

opacity, except for one six-minute 

period per one-hour period, which shall 

not exceed 27 percent.’’ EPA is 

proposing to approve these changes 

because Florida has removed FDEP 

Method 9 from its State rules, the 

exception is approximately equivalent 

to the 27 percent exception that remains 

in the rule, and the changes will not 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment or 

any other applicable CAA requirement. 

C. Analysis of Rules 62–296.602, .603, 

and .604 

As discussed below, the April 1, 2022, 

SIP revision contains several changes to 

Rule 62–296.602, Primary Lead-Acid 

Battery Manufacturing Operations; Rule 

62–296.603, Secondary Lead Smelting 

Operations; and Rule 62–296.604, 

Electric Arc Furnace Equipped 

Secondary Steel Manufacturing 

Operations. 

The April 1, 2022, submission revises 

Rules 62–296.602(3), 62–296.603(3), and 

62–296.604(3) by requiring the use of 

EPA’s air quality models as provided in 

40 CFR part 51, Appendix W; adding a 

citation to 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W; 

stating that EPA test methods are 

adopted and incorporated by reference 

at Rule 62–204.800; and clarifying that 

the ambient air quality standard for lead 

is the national standard. EPA is 

proposing to approve the 

aforementioned changes because they 

will not interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment or 

any other applicable CAA requirement. 

D. Analysis of Rules 62–296.700, .702, 

.704, .705, .707, .708, .711, and .712 

As discussed below, the April 1, 2022, 

submission requests several changes to 

Rule 62–296.700, Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) Particulate 

Matter; Rule 62–296.702, Fossil Fuel 

Steam Generators; Rule 62–296.704, 

Asphalt Concrete Plants; Rule 62– 

296.705, Phosphate Processing 

Operations; Rule 62–296.707, Electric 

Arc Furnace; Rule 62–296.708, Sweat or 

Pot Furnaces; Rule 62–296.711, 

Materials Handling, Sizing, Screening, 

Crushing and Grinding Operations; and 

Rule 62–296.712, Miscellaneous 

Manufacturing Process Operations. 

The April 1, 2022, submission seeks 

to clarify Rules 62–296.700(1) and (2) by 

updating certain rule citations and 

revising the term ‘‘existing emissions 

unit’’ to ‘‘any emissions unit issued an 

air permit on or before May 30, 1988,’’ 

because Florida’s PM RACT rules only 

apply to emission units that have been 

issued air permits on or before May 30, 

1988.7 The April 1, 2022 submission 

also deletes general language that 

provided that the rule applied in ‘‘a 

particulate matter air quality 

maintenance area or in the area of 

influence of such an area,’’ and instead 

includes language to clarify what areas 

of the State are subject to RACT for TSP 

by specifically identifying those 

geographic areas. Additionally, the 

revision moves language from Rule 62– 

296.700’s applicability section at .700(1) 

that provides an exception for an 

emissions unit which has received a 

determination of Best Available Control 

Technology to Rule 62–296.700’s 

exemptions section at .700(2). These 

changes to 62–296.700(1) and (2) clarify 

applicability of the rule. Rules 62– 

296.702, .704, .705, .707, .708, .711, and 

.712 are revised to include citations to 

applicable EPA test methods, as 

described in 40 CFR part 60, 

Appendices A–2, A–3, A–4, A–6, A–7, 

and B, and state that EPA test methods 

are adopted and incorporated by 

reference in Rule 62–204.800. In 

addition, the revisions delete a sentence 

in Rule 62–296–702(3) stating that EPA 

Method 5 may be used to demonstrate 

compliance because this provision 

already specifies when EPA Method 5 

may be used. EPA is proposing to 

approve these changes as they do not 

change the applicability of the rule and 

will not interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment or 

any other applicable CAA requirement. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as 

discussed in Section II of this preamble, 

EPA is proposing to incorporate by 

reference Florida Rule 62–296.320(4), 

General Pollutant Emission Limiting 

Standards, state effective July 10, 

2014; 8 Rule 62–296.406, Fossil Fuel 

Steam Generators with Less Than 250 

Million Btu Per Hour Heat Input, State 

effective November 5, 2020; Rule 62– 

296.602, Primary Lead-Acid Battery 

Manufacturing Operations, State 

effective July 10, 2014; Rule 62–296.603, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83065 

Secondary Lead Smelting Operations, 

State effective July 10, 2014; Rule 62– 

296.604, Electric Arc Furnace Equipped 

Secondary Steel Manufacturing 

Operations, state effective July 10, 2014; 

Rule 62–296.700, Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) Particulate 

Matter, State effective August 14, 2019; 

Rule 62–296.702, Fossil Fuel Steam 

Generators, State effective July 10, 2014; 

Rule 62–296.704, Asphalt Concrete 

Plants, State effective July 10, 2014; 

Rule 62–296.705, Phosphate Processing 

Operations, State effective July 10, 2014; 

Rule 62–296.707, Electric Arc Furnace, 

State effective July 10, 2014; Rule 62– 

296.708, Sweat or Pot Furnaces, State 

effective July 10, 2014; Rule 62–296.711, 

Materials Handling, Sizing, Screening, 

Crushing and Grinding Operations, 

State effective July 10, 2014; and Rule 

62–296.712, Miscellaneous 

Manufacturing Process Operations, 

State effective July 10, 2014. EPA has 

made, and will continue to make, these 

materials generally available through 

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region 4 office (please contact the 

person identified in the ‘‘For Further 

Information Contact’’ section of this 

preamble for more information). 

IV. Proposed Action 

For the reasons discussed above, EPA 

is proposing to approve the April 1, 

2022, Florida SIP revision consisting of 

amendments to Rules 62–296.320(4), 

62–296.406, 62–296.602, 62–296.603, 

62–296.604, 62–296.700, 62–296.702, 

62–296.704, 62–296.705, 62–296.707, 

62–296.708, 62–296.711, and 62– 

296.712 in the Florida SIP. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve State law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 

21879, April 11, 2023); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it approves a State program; 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); and 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

Tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) directs Federal 

agencies to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on minority populations 

and low-income populations to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. EPA defines 

environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ EPA further 

defines the term fair treatment to mean 

that ‘‘no group of people should bear a 

disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

The State of Florida did not evaluate 

environmental justice considerations as 

part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and 

applicable implementing regulations 

neither prohibit nor require such an 

evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ 

analysis and did not consider EJ in this 

proposed action. Due to the nature of 

the action being proposed here, this 

proposed action is expected to have a 

neutral to positive impact on the air 

quality of the affected area. 

Consideration of EJ is not required as 

part of this proposed action, and there 

is no information in the record 

inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 

12898 of achieving environmental 

justice for people of color, low-income 

populations, and Indigenous peoples. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: November 21, 2023. 

Jeaneanne Gettle, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26107 Filed 11–27–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 268 

[EPA–HQ–OLEM–2023–0372; FRL 11026– 

04–OLEM] 

Department of Energy Hanford Mixed 

Radioactive Waste Land Disposal 

Restrictions Variance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is proposing to grant a treatability 

variance from the Land Disposal 

Restrictions (LDR) treatment standards 

for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

for approximately 2,000 gallons of 

mixed low-activity waste from the 

Hanford Site in Washington State. The 

petitioner demonstrated that treatment 

of the waste to the specified standard is 

technically inappropriate, and the 

treatment variance is sufficient to 

minimize threats to human health and 

the environment posed by land disposal 

of the waste. If the variance is granted, 

the waste will be stabilized subject to 

specified conditions, and disposed at 

EnergySolutions in Clive, Utah and/or 

Waste Control Specialists in Andrews 

County, Texas. The variance would 

allow DOE, Washington, and EPA to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1